Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
This bill creates a USDA feral swine eradication and control program to address threats to agriculture, ecosystems, and human and animal health. It directs NRCS and APHIS to coordinate, authorizes contracts with eligible land-grant universities for research and outreach, sets a federal cost-share up to 75 percent, and provides $150 million mandatory funding for FY2026–2030 (40% NRCS, 60% APHIS).
Progressives stress humane safeguards and ecological risk controls
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory authorization that clearly establishes a feral swine eradication and control program, allocates multi-year mandatory funding, and assigns roles to federal agencies and land-grant institutions, but it leaves several operational, oversight, and safeguard details to agency implementation.
This bill creates a USDA feral swine eradication and control program to address threats to agriculture, ecosystems, and human and animal health.
It directs NRCS and APHIS to coordinate, authorizes contracts with eligible land-grant universities for research and outreach, sets a federal cost-share up to 75 percent, and provides $150 million mandatory funding for FY2026–2030 (40% NRCS, 60% APHIS).
It limits administrative spending to 10 percent, defines “threatened area,” and repeals section 2408 of the 2018 Farm Bill.
Technocratic, targeted program with modest funding and clear implementation path raises plausibility, but mandatory funding reallocation and implementation details add friction.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory authorization that clearly establishes a feral swine eradication and control program, allocates multi-year mandatory funding, and assigns roles to federal agencies and land-grant institutions, but it leaves several operational, oversight, and safeguard details to agency implementation.
Progressives stress humane safeguards and ecological risk controls
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives stress humane safeguards and ecological risk controls
Likely generally supportive because the bill addresses environmental damage, public and animal health, and farmer assistance.
Might seek stronger safeguards on humane methods, non-target impacts, and transparency about control techniques.
Inclined to support as a focused, agricultural protection measure with defined duties and funding.
Wants measurable goals, oversight, and cost-effectiveness assurances before full endorsement.
Generally supportive of protecting farmers, crops, and property from feral swine damage, but cautious about new mandatory federal spending and potential federal preemption of state control.
Prefers state-led solutions and limited bureaucracy.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technocratic, targeted program with modest funding and clear implementation path raises plausibility, but mandatory funding reallocation and implementation details add friction.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives stress humane safeguards and ecological risk controls
Technocratic, targeted program with modest funding and clear implementation path raises plausibility, but mandatory funding reallocation an…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory authorization that clearly establishes a feral swine eradication and control program, allocates multi-year mandatory funding, and assigns r…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.